U.S. v. YANCEY U.S. Appl. 7th Cir. Drug habbit and guns = bad. Affirmed.

[Meplat]

The same can be said for catching your wife in the sack with the pool boy. But people married to bimbos are not prohibited.

If someone has an underlying psychiatric condition, for example schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, then marijuana can have highly idiosyncratic consequences, including violence. I've seen it happen. There are studies that suggest it can also activate a latent predisposition.

[Alaric]

This is from the decision in this case. Its clear that once one has ceased the use of illicit drugs they should be able to own firearms. As far as a specific timeframe or statute of limitations I don't believe one exists.
ETA: Just think of how this is expressed on a 4473, Are you a habitual user of illicit narcotics? (or something to that effect.)

Form 4473 Question on Drug Use:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

(6) The term “controlled substance” means a drug or other substance, or immediate precursor, included in schedule I, II, III, IV, or V of part B of this subchapter. The term does not include distilled spirits, wine, malt beverages, or tobacco, as those terms are defined or used in subtitle E of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

. Blast, foiled again!

Will the overall war be decided in our lifetime? No. But I absolutely believe we'll see battles decided in our lifetimes on both of these issues. In fact we already have, Heller and McDonald were both what I would consider battles decided in our favor. Medicinal Marijuana was a victory for that crowd. I imagine its entirely possible and even quite probable that we'll see more victories on both these fronts.

Semantics of "wars" vs. "battles" aside, this is armageddon for our rights. These wars are far from over, even with victories like Heller and McDonald behind us.

[anthonyca]

That kind of doesn't make sense. 922(g)(3) violations are felonies, as stated elsewhere in the opinion. No way on this blue planet he can "regain his right to possess" by simply not doing drugs after a 922(g)(3) conviction.

He could avoid the crime in the first place by not abusing the drug of choice, but once done, it's a committed offense. In the very least, the ice is thin underfoot until the statute of limitations runs on the offense(s) in question.

What this ultimately makes me question is the logic the court engaged in to decide on intermediate scrutiny on the basis of "well it's not a felony issue, so we're not going to apply strict scrutiny." Sounds like they decided to cast about for any way to avoid strict scrutiny application in the first place, regardless of the outcome. The scrutiny level itself sets a precedent, regardless of whether the perp loses on the facts or not.

Hrmph. I realize I'm under-analyzing the difference between "committed a felony" vs. "convicted of a felony", but I don't know that my failure to do so affects the observation that the court engaged in a silly handwaving exercise to avoid SS.

Something only the courts could come up with, you can regain your rights to firearms simply by ceasing drug use, but you are still in prison for up to 10 years, and are now a felon, which would of course make one a prohibited person.

Wasn't the seventh the same circuit that said DV misdomeanants in California were no longer prohibited if they filed a 1204.3? That is completely false. They brought up California even though we are no in their jurisdiction. These idiots should be kicked off the bench for malpractice.

[J.D.Allen]

So smoking pot makes them violent gang bangers?

I'm not denying that certain undesirable types of people smoke pot (hippies, gang bangers), but to say that smoking pot LEADS to violent crime is absolutely ignorant and absurd. I might buy the argument if different drugs were involved, but not pot.

Good point. I conceed.

[J.D.Allen]

Well put, its not their pot smoking or drug seeking behaviors that lead them down a road of violence. Its their gang affiliations that take care of that part.

I disagree. Pot smoking may not lead to violence, but other drugs CERTAINLY do. I have seen enough in my six years in the courts to be convinced of this.

[GrizzlyGuy]

Can you point out where this definition is encoded in federal law? What is the exact statute of limitations on "current use", per federal law? I've asked this question before, done my own research, and always come up empty. If this isn't a regulation the screams out for challenge as "arbitrary", I don't know what does.

It is in what I posted above (27 CFR 478.11's definition of "Unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance").

[tcrpe]

Of course, the potheads will read this and forget about it 2 hrs later

See what you started?

[Lone_Gunman]

Define habitual. Define regular user. Thc can be detected in your system for somewhere around 30 days. So, if you aren't an idiot and don't tell the cops "I smoke every day", then how the hell do they prove you are a habitual or regular user? Is "every once in a while for recreation" regular or habitual? I don't think so.

[Crom]

Define habitual. Define regular user. Thc can be detected in your system for somewhere around 30 days. So, if you aren't an idiot and don't tell the cops "I smoke every day", then how the hell do they prove you are a habitual or regular user? Is "every once in a while for recreation" regular or habitual? I don't think so.

You are correct. Yancey was a dumb ***. Look at what he said to the cops:

Police officers executed an arrest warrant for Yancey in June 2008. Yancey, who was 18 at the time, was carrying a loaded pistol and 0.7 grams of marijuana. He confessed that he had been smoking marijuana daily since age 16. Arrests for possession of marijuana in 2006 and again in 2008 corroborate this admission.

Yancey by his own admission gave all the rope needed to hang himself.

[wash]

When I say pick one, it's pretty simple.

If you really like RKBA, be a gun owner or an activist and even a drug activist but don't do drugs.

If you really like drugs, be a drug user or an activist and even a gun activist but don't own guns.

Once your drug of choice is legal at state and federal levels, then you can start fighting for both.

Just don't hang your currently illegal activity around the neck of our explicitly constitutionally protected legal activity.

If you are going to break federal laws, we don't need you, we don't want you, go away.

[J.D.Allen]

I love a quality beer and a good glass of wine (like the one I'm drinking RIGHT NOW), but I would never think to shoot under the influence. Why? Personal responsibility, that's why.

I would hope that this would be the attitude of EVERYONE on this forum. Intoxicants and weapons do not mix well. ANY intoxicant.

[J.D.Allen]

If you are going to break federal laws, we don't need you, we don't want you, go away.

This

[E Pluribus Unum]

I don't like it.

Ok... the guy had some drugs and a gun. Was he high at the time? Did he have enough that it could be considered for sales?

Potheads have a right to self defense. If he is not a violent offender and not under the influence at the time, he should be able to have a gun.

As soon as we start labeling certain crimes as ok to restrict self defense, where does it stop?

[wash]

I'm 100% fine with a drug user defending himself with a gun.

He just has to take responsibility for his crimes if he is arested.

Asking gun rights groups to fight against this type of criminal case is dumb.

We avoid being defendants as much as possible, we want to be plaintiffs!

[J.D.Allen]

Even here in AZ, one of the most 2A friendly states in the union, we have a law that prohibits drinking while carrying...it just makes sense. Now the prohibition on carrying in a bar or restaurant that serves alcohol for consumption on the premises even if you're not drinking is a different matter alltogether...